• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 minutes ago

    I would have no problem with AI if it could be useful.

    The problem is no matter how many times I’m promised otherwise it cannot automate my job and talk to the idiots for me. It just hallucinates a random gibberish which is obviously unhealthful.

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    AI is not impressive or worth all the trade offs and worse quality of life. It is decent in some areas but mostly grifter tech.

  • kaotic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    48 minutes ago

    Don’t build AI into everything and assume you know how your users want to use it. If they do want to use AI, give me an MCP server to interact with your service instead and let users build out their own tooling.

  • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I think LLMs are fine for specific uses. A useful technology for brainstorming, debugging code, generic code examples, etc. People are just weary of oligarchs mandating how we use technology. We want to be customers but they want to instead shape how we work, as if we are livestock

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Right? Like let me choose if and when I want to use it. Don’t shove it down our throats and then complain when we get upset or don’t use it how you want us to use it. We’ll use it however we want to use it, not you.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I should further add - don’t fucking use it in places it’s not capable of properly functioning and then trying to deflect the blame on the AI from yourself, like what Air Canada did.

        https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatbot-misinformation-what-travellers-should-know

        When Air Canada’s chatbot gave incorrect information to a traveller, the airline argued its chatbot is “responsible for its own actions”.

        Artificial intelligence is having a growing impact on the way we travel, and a remarkable new case shows what AI-powered chatbots can get wrong – and who should pay. In 2022, Air Canada’s chatbot promised a discount that wasn’t available to passenger Jake Moffatt, who was assured that he could book a full-fare flight for his grandmother’s funeral and then apply for a bereavement fare after the fact.

        According to a civil-resolutions tribunal decision last Wednesday, when Moffatt applied for the discount, the airline said the chatbot had been wrong – the request needed to be submitted before the flight – and it wouldn’t offer the discount. Instead, the airline said the chatbot was a “separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions”. Air Canada argued that Moffatt should have gone to the link provided by the chatbot, where he would have seen the correct policy.

        The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal rejected that argument, ruling that Air Canada had to pay Moffatt $812.02 (£642.64) in damages and tribunal fees

        • lime!@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          …what kind of brain damage did the rep have to think that was a viable defense? surely their human customer service personnel are also responsible for their own actions?

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 minutes ago

            It makes sense to do it, it’s just along the lines of evil company.

            If they lose, it’s some bad press and people will forget.

            If they win, they’ve begun setting precedent to fuck over their customers and earn more money. Even if it only had a 5% chance of success, it was probably worth it.

  • HalfSalesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    While no doubt it may be that most users of DuckDuckGo are anti-AI given the nature of the service and who it attracts, the 90% metric makes me believe that the people who ambivalently use DuckDuckGo’s AI (and are not pro or anti) did not vote in this at all and may find themselves using DuckDuckGo less if they see the surface-level convenience randomly disappear from the service.

    So I assume they’ll get rid of the AI and they’ll see a drop in users overtime as a percentage of minimum effort types get confused or annoyed. And then they’ll bring it back as they see a drop in users, annoy the users that hate AI and they’ll leave as well. And neither group will end up ever returning.

    This whole poll was a terrible idea.

  • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Google became crap ever since they added AI. Microsoft became crap ever since they added AI. OpenAI started losing money the moment they started working on AI. Coincidence? I think not!

    Rational people don’t want Abominable Intelligence anywhere near them.

    Personally, I don’t mind the AI overviews, but they shouldn’t show up every time you do a search. That’s just a waste of energy.

    • MBech@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Google became crap about 10 years ago when they added the product banner in the top, and had the first 5-10 search results be promoted ads. Long before they ever considered adding AI.

      • parricc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Time is sneaking up on us. It’s not even 10 years anymore. It’s closer to 20. 💀

      • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I guess. And then they removed the “Don’t be evil” motto just to drive the point home.

        But you have to agree, the company DID become even worse once they started using AI.

        • MBech@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Oh absolutely. It’s just important to remember that they’ve been horrible for a long time, and has shown more ads in a single search than your average 30 minute youtube video.

    • Spaniard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Google and Microsoft were crap before AI, I don’t remember when google removed the “don’t be evil” but at that point they have been crap for a few years already.

    • fleton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah google kinda started sucking a few years before AI went mainstream, the search results took a dive in quality and garbage had already started circulating to the top.

      • Reygle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I mind them. Nobody at my workplace scrolls beyond the AI overview and every single one of the overviews they quote to me about technical issues are wrong, 100%. Not even an occasional “lucky guess”.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 hours ago

      If they take the poll to heart it can still be a sucess. They can advertise that they listened to their users and changed course.

      That’s the thing about really good marketing - it should not only drive users to use your service, but the reactions to that marketing can be used as market research to improve your product and future marketing in a manner that drives even more users to your product.

    • hoppolito@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I am fairly sure this is the actual point of the campaign. The selection bias for a ‘poll’ like this (one that instantly on-boards you to the ai-disabled version of your product if you click answer negative, no less) is so great that I don’t believe the suits/analysts at ddg ever envisioned a different result. Polls and comment sections lure the extreme viewpoints and the ddg crowd already skews privacy-conscious so this was a highly expected outcome.

      What the campaign does instead is:

      1. Show that you ‘care’ and ‘listen to feedback’ (by a response to the poll somewhere between disabling the ai by default to making the no-ai button a little bit bigger)
      2. show that you have the ability to turn off ai on your product in the first place to those who care
      3. like I said above, directly onboard people onto their preferred search strategy so that when relatives/friends send this around people get a little taste, and realize this exists

      It’s quite clever imo, and there’s no real bad outcome for what I assume is a pretty inexpensive campaign.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      whoa nice! Thanks!

      For people trying to configure that in mozilla (I am trying to get away from it but for now :/)

      • -> Edit -> Settings -> Search
      • “Search Shortcuts” -> Add (to add a search engine)
      • “Search Engine Name”: DuckDuckGo Lite
      • “URL with %s in place of search term”: https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite/?q=%25s (this has to be =%s, lemmy keeps mutilating that to =%25s everytime I save my post)
      • “Keyword (optional)”: @ddgl (or pick whatever you like - it appears @ddg is hardcoded and gets refused)
      • -> Save Engine
      • scroll up to the top, “Default Search Engine”
      • from the dropdown list, select “DuckGuckGo Lite”

      Done.

    • coffee_nutcase207@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It’s horrible for the environment too and wastes electricity. It’s fucked up that Google makes everything you search an AI search.

  • 58008@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    179
    ·
    13 hours ago

    At least they have an AI-free option, as annoying as it is to have to opt into it.

    On a related note, it’s hilarious to me that the Ecosia search engine has AI built in. Like, I don’t think planting any number of trees is going to offset the damage AI has done and will do to the planet.

      • NewDay@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Ecosia produces its own green solar energy. According to them, they produce twice as much as they consume. The AI is still shit, because it is just ChatGPT.

        • Mwa@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          hot take: this comment gives me a idea for them a opt-in AI powered entirely by solar energy if we solve the ethics problem first ofc.

    • Sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Well, I don’t know about that.

      My swiss hoster just started offering AI and says that their AI infrastructure is 100 % powered by renewables and the waste heat is used for district heating.

      You could argue that LLM training in itself used so much energy that you’ll never be able to compensate for the damage, but I don’t know. 🤷

      • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        While good, you should always keep in mind that using renewables for this means that power can’t be used for other purposes, meaning the difference has to be covered by other sources of energy. Always bear in mind that these things don’t exist in a vaccum. The resources they use always mean resources aren’t used elsewhere. At worst this would mean that new clean power is built to power a waste, and then old dirty power has to be used for everything else, instead of being replaced by clean energy.

        • MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Yeah that reminds me of the data centres hogging green energy that was meant for households

        • Demdaru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          On the other hand…the same private entity wouldn’t buy the means to produce renewable power if they didn’t want to power their AI center. So in the ends, nothing changes, and the power couldn’t be used for other purposes because it simply wouldn’t be generated.

          However, as they did and are using it to promote themselves, they are influencing others to also adopt renewable energy policy in a way, no matter how small.

          No, normally I am not that optimistic, but I am trying ^^"